PARNA VASUDEVAIAH,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD

ITA 456/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA (Vice President), Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the payment received by the assessee was voluntary and ex-gratia, not compensation in lieu of termination of employment. Therefore, it was not taxable as 'profits in lieu of salary' under Section 17(3)(i).

What were the facts?

The assessee, a former employee of Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., received Rs. 10,20,208/- on voluntary retirement under a company scheme. The Assessing Officer treated this amount as 'profits in lieu of salary' under Section 17(3)(i) and disallowed relief claimed under Section 89.

What were the issues?

Whether the voluntary retirement compensation received by the assessee is taxable as 'profits in lieu of salary' and if relief under Section 89 is admissible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 17(3)(i),Section 89

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE- & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

Hearing: 06.03.2025Pronounced: 22.05.2025

PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM:

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.01.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”)

2019-20. 2. It is a recalled matter. The assessee has raised the following

grounds of appeal:-

“1. The Appellant has not received any mail of notices in his mail Inbox & the said mails have gone into the spam tab of the mailbox, hence the Appellant was not aware of such mails & he remained to attend these notices because he did not receive the same in his mail Inbox. Thus the Appellant has inadvertently missed the opportunity given by t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 89

All 65 judgments and leading authorities on Section 89 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →